Initiative could make elections more fair

J. SCOTT CHRISTIANSON
// Published January 20, 2009
in
The Columbia Tribune

In the lead-up to today’s presidential inauguration, the media outlets
are once again filled with pundits explaining how Barack Obama won the
election. A brilliant strategy, tireless volunteers, a
once-in-a-generation leader - all angles are being pushed and prodded.
One speedy fellow - Chuck Todd - even managed to write and publish a book
titled "How Barack Obama won" just in time for sale at the
inauguration.

I’m inclined to believe the good things being said about President Obama
and his campaign, but I’m also sure that Todd and the other pundits would
now be pontificating on how brilliant John McCain’s campaign was if he
had won in November. To the victor go the spoils, I guess. But these
founts of political wisdom are missing an important aspect about the past
election and all modern presidential elections: All presidential
campaigns are tailored to fit the awkward and inherently unfair system by
which we elect presidents, namely the Electoral College.

Most of us are vaguely aware that a winning candidate needs 270 electoral
votes to win the presidency. That magic number is one vote more than half
of the 538 total electoral votes possible: one for every one of the 435
members of the House of Representatives, one for each senator of every
state and three electors for the District of Columbia.

Unfortunately, this means that while the number of electors that a state
sends to the electoral college is somewhat proportional to the population
of state, it is not directly proportional. This problem is compounded by
the fact that 48 of the states have a "winner take all"
approach to assigning their electors. For example, McCain won Missouri by
0.15 percent but was awarded 100 percent of Missouri’s 11 electors. These
two aspects of our current Electoral College system lead to some very
undemocratic effects.

First, a presidential candidate can win the popular vote but not win the
necessary votes in the Electoral College to become president. This has
happened several times in our history. Second, some votes count more than
others. Votes in the Electoral College from less populous states are
given more weight. For example, if you live in Nebraska, Rhode Island or
Vermont, your vote counts about twice as much as our votes do here in
Missouri.

Any fair system of elections - from city council to president - should
uphold these two basic principles: Whoever gets the most votes wins, and
everyone’s vote counts equally.

The Electoral College also has some disturbing effects on the way that
campaigns are run. There is no reason for candidates to run in all 50
states. Typically, most of the country is essentially left out of the
campaign, and a few "battleground" states emerge into which all
energy and money are poured. So the issues of the battleground states
become the key issues of most campaigns, instead of the important issues
of the country as a whole. Moreover, if there are any voting
irregularities, voter suppression, counting errors or other problems in
one of the battleground states, it can affect the outcome of the
presidential selection. Unfortunately, this encourages some political
operatives to try their hand at "electioneering" in the most
contested states.

I could go on about the problems with the Electoral College, but the real
question is what to do about it. Unfortunately the most direct route -
changing the Constitution - has been blocked time after time by the small
states that have a disproportionately higher representation in the
Electoral College.

A more effective means of changing the system has been proposed in recent
years: the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative. The NPV doesn’t
attempt to eliminate the Electoral College, but it uses the power of each
state to determine how its votes are cast in the Electoral College - a
power that is explicitly given to the states in the U.S. Constitution.

It works like this: Individual state legislatures, such as Missouri’s
General Assembly, pass a law to award all their electoral votes to the
presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The
legislation is part of an interstate compact with other states that pass
the same legislation. The law would not take effect until enough states
have entered the compact to elect a president that magic 270
number.

So far, this plan has been adopted in four states: Illinois, Hawaii,
Maryland and New Jersey. Numerous other states are considering it. It is
perhaps not the most elegant of options, but it is the best opportunity
that we have to make the selection process for our president and vice
president more fair to all.

Tomorrow night, the League of Women Voters will host a discussion on the
National Popular Vote Compact at the Boone County Electric Community Room
starting at 7 p.m. This is a great place to learn more about the NPV
initiative and hear a careful analysis of the issue.